Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/xe/display: separate d3cold handling from xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend_late()

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 03:40:47PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Make the special d3cold paths completely separate from the rest of the
>> runtime pm calls.
>> 
>> The intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work() call right after
>> xe_display_pm_suspend_late() might be completely redundant, but this
>> avoids any functional changes.
>> 
>> Wiggle the comment while at it. It gets duplicated for now, but this
>> will be addressed in the follow-up.
>> 
>> v2: Update comments
>> 
>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 12 ++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
>> index 493e9e09b6c9..bdafc010fae1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
>> @@ -389,14 +389,14 @@ void xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend_late(struct xe_device *xe)
>>  	if (!xe->info.probe_display)
>>  		return;
>>  
>> -	if (xe->d3cold.allowed)
>> +	if (xe->d3cold.allowed) {
>>  		xe_display_pm_suspend_late(xe);
>> +		/* Ensure the wakelock release work gets flushed */
>> +		intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work(display);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * If xe_display_pm_suspend_late() is not called, it is likely
>> -	 * that we will be on dynamic DC states with DMC wakelock enabled. We
>> -	 * need to flush the release work in that case.
>> -	 */
>> +	/* Ensure the wakelock release work gets flushed */
>>  	intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work(display);
>
> In the next patch you end up removing this entirely, so I'm wondering
> why this patch simply doesn't remove this and move it to the d3cold only?!
>
> I mean, I saw you replace that by the new runtime_ calls that does the
> power_disable, but I don't see that calling the flush, so why simply not
> remove now on this patch and make that next one only adding that runtime call
> here?

I believe the flush is *deep* down the call path there.

>
> But well, this patch itself is not wrong and it does what it tells and
> you are transparently telling this is for ne follow up work. So,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

Thanks!

BR,
Jani.

>
>>  }
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.47.3
>> 

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel